In this word, I guess the Proto-NEC lateral affricate would correspond to a dental stop in the Basque (*piti-) and Romance (bode) forms. In fact, those consonants are somewhat similar to PIE palato-velars in which they're reflected as lateral fricatives in some languages and velar stops in others, as discovered by Trubetzkoy in the '30s.

> > semantically is misfit. In fact Low German butt (> German Butt, Butte, Bütte) from Middle Low German/Middle Dutch bot[te], but[te], applies to flat fishes such as 'perch' (OHG agabu:z, High German Butz(li)).
>
> *Bhr.: You have picked up German Butzen 'bit, impurity, dross; core',
> compared by Kluge (-Krause-Götze, 11th ed., 1934, pp. 114 and 115)
> with Butt(e) 'brill', and demonstrated (or stated) that it's another
> word / has nothing to do with Butze 4 'Lämmchen' (Grimm II 591), which
> is the only one I was meaning (wouldn't You be so deeply persuaded I'm
> a priori wrong, You would probably have made an extra effort to check
> out between German homophones)
>

I'm not "deeply presuaded" of anything, but my Kluge's is 23th edition the last is 24th), and yout Butze isn't related to Low German butt but likely to Romance bode.

> > Latin _facio:_, _fe:ci:_, _factum_ shows that *dHeh1- took a
> > /k/-extension, and the Greek-Indic noun could just as well be built on
> > *dHeh1k-.
> >
> > *Bhr.: is there a sequence where a suffix *-ko- can be recognized as such
> instead of either a possible root-enlargement or part of a suffix
> conglomerate?

Yes, *bHreu- with an /s/-extension, but *bHreu-skom needs no extension.

> >
> > > I think one single uncontroversial case is sufficient to prove that a
> > > R(e)-ko- scheme is possible (...)
> > (...)
> > As for uncontroversial examples of *R(e)-ko-, there may be some, but I had
> > in mind a statistical analysis of such purported forms within Celtic.
> > Something may be possible but highly improbable.
> >
> > *Bhr.: if You have checked the whole material, please let us know it; if
> You don't, "highly improbable" only expresses an impression of Yours

True. When time permits I must check the whole material.

> >
> > > Note also that this case has been made for *gWet-ko-s, which I added
> > > as a merely prudential alternative to *bek-n'o-s with Stokes-Zupitza's
> > > Law; this means that if I weren't be able to justify R(e)-ko- my
> > > reconstruction *bek-n'o-s would become relatively stronger
> >
> > Assuming you could justify *bek- in the first place, as well as Zupitza's
> > formulation of Stokes' Law from a sufficient number of other examples.
> >
> > DGK
> >
>
>
> *Bhr.: I can't understand how You explain preserved sequences of media and
> nasal in Celtic if Your "MacBain's Law" predicts *medias geminatas *if the
> accent was before the cluster and Your version of Stokes' Law *tenues
> geminatas *if the accent was after the cluster

Set.-roots and living /n/-suffixation complicate matters. But obviously I must check the whole material before making any pronouncements. And I must finish my CURRENT projects first, namely a revised theory of secondary labialism in Gmc. (i.e. the 'wolf' problem) and a convincing backdating of Kluge's Law to Old Western IE.

DGK

Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.